- NANOG - lists.nanog.org

Time Warner Routing Issue
by Brian Christopher Raaen 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

I have a Time Warner circuit that has been giving me issues and what their tech support has been telling me has not matched my previous experience with other backbones. I have been trying to move the backbone on one site from a tier-3 provider to Time Warner. Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed, so I had to make an emergency mid-day switch to move to Time Warner. Then yesterday night they stopped announcing my blocks so my site went down again and would still be completely down if we had not added NAT to the /30 point-to-point link. They said the reason was they didn't have an LOA (which they had gotten back in October) and the ip blocks were not in the Level3 Radb list. I could still see announcement to some peers (Shaw Cable in Canada) in a few looking glasses and BGP routers. However my network blocks were not showing for the larger US carriers like Qwest and AT&T. One of their techs just called me back and said that Level3 should be advertising it, but I still do not see the routes on the AT&T route server. After noting that the tech said that it may take another day for BGP to "propagate" to other peers as they update their radb tables. In my experience I've never seen anything where I had to wait for a route to propagate other than standard routing table updates which usually take less then an hour, and I'd really not expect this many problems between Tier1 and Tier2 providers. I need to know if this matches other's experience and wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and "show ip bgp". The networks in question at the following 4 /24's 68.68.176.0/24 68.68.177.0/24 68.68.178.0/24 68.68.179.0/24 the serial ip address is 72.43.84.254 Thanks for your assistance. --- Brian Raaen Zcorum Network Architect

1 1

Re: Time Warner Routing Issue
by Scott Weeks 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

: Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have : (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed How did they get the routes into their table if the ckt was not up and you were not advertising the routes to them? Did they also announce the covering prefix? scott --- mailing-lists(a)brianraaen.com wrote: From: Brian Christopher Raaen <mailing-lists(a)brianraaen.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: Time Warner Routing Issue Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:46:52 -0500 I have a Time Warner circuit that has been giving me issues and what their tech support has been telling me has not matched my previous experience with other backbones. I have been trying to move the backbone on one site from a tier-3 provider to Time Warner. Yesterday TW started advertising BGP for the ip blocks I have (68.68.176.0/22 in /24's) before they had the circuit completed, so I had to make an emergency mid-day switch to move to Time Warner. Then yesterday night they stopped announcing my blocks so my site went down again and would still be completely down if we had not added NAT to the /30 point-to-point link. They said the reason was they didn't have an LOA (which they had gotten back in October) and the ip blocks were not in the Level3 Radb list. I could still see announcement to some peers (Shaw Cable in Canada) in a few looking glasses and BGP routers. However my network blocks were not showing for the larger US carriers like Qwest and AT&T. One of their techs just called me back and said that Level3 should be advertising it, but I still do not see the routes on the AT&T route server. After noting that the tech said that it may take another day for BGP to "propagate" to other peers as they update their radb tables. In my experience I've never seen anything where I had to wait for a route to propagate other than standard routing table updates which usually take less then an hour, and I'd really not expect this many problems between Tier1 and Tier2 providers. I need to know if this matches other's experience and wanting to know what other people were seeing with traceroutes and "show ip bgp". The networks in question at the following 4 /24's 68.68.176.0/24 68.68.177.0/24 68.68.178.0/24 68.68.179.0/24 the serial ip address is 72.43.84.254 Thanks for your assistance. --- Brian Raaen Zcorum Network Architect

3 2

Range using single-mode SFPs across multi-mode fiber - was Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
by Marshall Eubanks 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:34 PM, oliver rothschild <orothschild(a)gmail.com> wrote: > This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely As a suggestion, could you please in the future not use a subject such as "Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56" for posts. It is MUCH better to use a topical subject line (see my suggestion above); that helps people who filter their mail keep track of threads and topics. Regards Marshall > inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX > variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always > for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there > know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in > advance. > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: >> Send NANOG mailing list submissions to >> nanog(a)nanog.org >> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >> https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >> nanog-request(a)nanog.org >> >> You can reach the person managing the list at >> nanog-owner(a)nanog.org >> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >> than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." >> >> >> Today's Topics: >> >> 1. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael) >> 3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran) >> 4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter) >> 5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) >> 6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> (bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com) >> 7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner) >> 8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka) >> 9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A) >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Message: 1 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> >> To: Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <CAArzuouqU2SivNgcE-3ipe-AwSq7v7N1H4wWqOxzxsP8hxYCOA(a)mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> ?Authors: >>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 2 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000 >> From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)Cable.Comcast.com> >> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com>, Hal Murray >> <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <B13238AB0CB1514B9509DEEE5F98F2E00DE39363(a)PACDCEXMB13.cable.comcast.com> >> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >> >> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… >> >> Mike >> ________________________________________ >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] >> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >> To: Hal Murray >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> Authors: >>> Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 3 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000 >> From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas >> Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <131B2DA4-7C99-4DB8-924A-EBCB27EF9BF0(a)arin.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >> >> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >> >> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >> >> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >> >> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 4 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000 >> From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> >> To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <8C3137B6-7690-4CF5-85B2-594E450CDB7B(a)ukbroadband.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >> >> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> >> -- >> Leigh >> >> >> On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >>> >>>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >>> >>> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >>> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >>> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >>> >>> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >>> >>> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >>> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >>> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >>> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >>> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >>> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >>> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >>> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >>> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >>> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >>> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >>> >>> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >>> /John >>> >>> John Curran >>> President and CEO >>> ARIN >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >>> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530 >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> >> To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> >> Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org>, Hal Murray >> <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against >> censorship >> Message-ID: >> <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=QZxLLEPw(a)mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 >> >> Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider >> endorsing the MAAWG comments. >> >> thanks >> suresh >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael >> <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> wrote: >>> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >>> >>> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… >>> >>> Mike >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] >>> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >>> To: Hal Murray >>> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >>> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship >>> >>> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >>> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >>> >>> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >>> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >>> >>> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >>> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >>> >>> --srs >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>>> ?Authors: >>>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 6 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000 >> From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com >> To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger(a)gmail.com> >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived >> Message-ID: <20111214141052.GA7933(a)vacation.karoshi.com.> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >> >> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote: >>> What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ? >> >> babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your >> home, yes?) >> >> /bill >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 7 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST) >> From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> >> To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112140906460.30735(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> >> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed >> >> On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly >> mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out >> wrong. I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even >> admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service >> Provider IPv6 experience." >> >> While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly >> anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that >> doesn't make it any less underhanded. >> >> jms >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 8 >> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800 >> From: Mark Tinka <mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> >> To: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> >> Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your >> Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) >> Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >> On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter >> wrote: >> >>> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >>> >>> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm >> >> I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with >> the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing >> stories that their link titles take out of context. >> >> Mark. >>

5 6

Re: NANOG Digest, Vol 47, Issue 56
by oliver rothschild 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

This is my first e-mail to the list and I hope it is not entirely inappropriate. We are attempting to use Juniper single-mode SFPs (LX variety) across multi-mode fiber. Standard listed distance is always for SFPs using the appropriate type of fiber. Does anyone out there know how much distance we are likely to get? Thanks for your help in advance. On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <nanog-request(a)nanog.org> wrote: > Send NANOG mailing list submissions to > nanog(a)nanog.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://mailman.nanog.org/mailman/listinfo/nanog > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > nanog-request(a)nanog.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > nanog-owner(a)nanog.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NANOG digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) > 2. RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship (O'Reirdan, Michael) > 3. Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas > Bonus Has Arrived) (John Curran) > 4. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Leigh Porter) > 5. Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship (Suresh Ramasubramanian) > 6. Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived > (bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com) > 7. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Justin M. Streiner) > 8. Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) (Mark Tinka) > 9. Multiple ISP Load Balancing (Holmes,David A) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:42:51 +0530 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> > To: Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship > Message-ID: > <CAArzuouqU2SivNgcE-3ipe-AwSq7v7N1H4wWqOxzxsP8hxYCOA(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal > departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. > > If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with > something, other operators could sign on to that as well. > > The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than > would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. > > --srs > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >> >> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >> ?Authors: >> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:36:59 +0000 > From: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)Cable.Comcast.com> > To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com>, Hal Murray > <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: RE: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship > Message-ID: > <B13238AB0CB1514B9509DEEE5F98F2E00DE39363(a)PACDCEXMB13.cable.comcast.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. > > http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… > > Mike > ________________________________________ > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] > Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 > To: Hal Murray > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship > > I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal > departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. > > If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with > something, other operators could sign on to that as well. > > The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than > would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. > > --srs > > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >> >> Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >> DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >> Authors: >> Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >> David Dagon, Georgia Tech >> Dan Kaminsky, DKH >> Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >> Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:18:56 +0000 > From: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick(a)ianai.net> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your Christmas > Bonus Has Arrived) > Message-ID: <131B2DA4-7C99-4DB8-924A-EBCB27EF9BF0(a)arin.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > >> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). > > I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note > that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer > facilitators to the ARIN web site: > > <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> > > Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to > comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in > compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of > these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may > make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service > (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) > but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available > for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via > transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). > More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under > "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. > > FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > ARIN > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 12:30:06 +0000 > From: Leigh Porter <leigh.porter(a)ukbroadband.com> > To: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Cc: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) > Message-ID: <8C3137B6-7690-4CF5-85B2-594E450CDB7B(a)ukbroadband.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! > > http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm > > > -- > Leigh > > > On 14 Dec 2011, at 12:21, "John Curran" <jcurran(a)arin.net> wrote: > >> On Dec 14, 2011, at 12:40 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: >> >>> I believe this company is the one that sold the MS & Borders blocks, so they may be "legit" (whatever that means in this context). >> >> I also do not know what "legit" means in this context, but will note >> that we have added a public list of all recognized specified transfer >> facilitators to the ARIN web site: >> >> <https://www.arin.net/resources/transfer_listing/facilitator_list.html> >> >> Facilitators are aware of ARIN's address transfer policies and agree to >> comply with same. Note that any qualifying parties may transfer space in >> compliance with policy, but folks may find it easier to work with one of >> these facilitators to find a matching party for transfer. Facilitators may >> make use of information in the optional Specified Transfer Listing Service >> (which lists those who have space available or prequalify as a recipient) >> but not required to do so. Similarly, parties which may have space available >> for transfer or wish to prequalify in advance to receive address space via >> transfer may also register in the Specified Transfer Listing Service (STLS). >> More information is available on the ARIN web site <www.arin.net> under >> "IPv4 SPECIFIED TRANSFER OPTIONS" section. >> >> FYI (and Happy Holidays :-) >> /John >> >> John Curran >> President and CEO >> ARIN >> >> >> >> >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. >> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > ______________________________________________________________________ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 18:01:06 +0530 > From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists(a)gmail.com> > To: "O'Reirdan, Michael" <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> > Cc: "nanog(a)nanog.org" <nanog(a)nanog.org>, Hal Murray > <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> > Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against > censorship > Message-ID: > <CAArzuotafMx+1mRFT9dLqYyRvhyFBsPg=Cir48-Ez=QZxLLEPw(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Wonderful. I would urge SPs based stateside to strongly consider > endorsing the MAAWG comments. > > thanks > suresh > > On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 5:06 PM, O'Reirdan, Michael > <Michael_OReirdan(a)cable.comcast.com> wrote: >> MAAWG has written voicing its concerns on SOPA and PIPA. >> >> http://www.maawg.org/sites/maawg/files/news/MAAWG_US_Congress_S968-HR3261_C… >> >> Mike >> ________________________________________ >> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [ops.lists(a)gmail.com] >> Sent: 14 December 2011 05:12 >> To: Hal Murray >> Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org >> Subject: Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship >> >> I would strongly suggest that operators work with their legal >> departments to endorse this paper by Crocker and others. >> >> If other ISP organizations (such as say MAAWG) come out with >> something, other operators could sign on to that as well. >> >> The EFF petition has way too much propaganda and far less content than >> would be entirely productive in a policy discussion. >> >> --srs >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Hal Murray <hmurray(a)megapathdsl.net> wrote: >>> >>> ?Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the >>> ? ?DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill >>> ?Authors: >>> ? ?Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. >>> ? ?David Dagon, Georgia Tech >>> ? ?Dan Kaminsky, DKH >>> ? ?Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. >>> ? ?Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium >> >> >> >> -- >> Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) >> > > > > -- > Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists(a)gmail.com) > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 14:10:52 +0000 > From: bmanning(a)vacation.karoshi.com > To: Chaim Rieger <chaim.rieger(a)gmail.com> > Cc: nanog(a)nanog.org > Subject: Re: Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived > Message-ID: <20111214141052.GA7933(a)vacation.karoshi.com.> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Chaim Rieger wrote: >> What do you have for those that don't do the whole Jesus thing ? > > babalyonian fertility icons? (you -did- bring an evergreen tree into your > home, yes?) > > /bill > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 09:16:27 -0500 (EST) > From: "Justin M. Streiner" <streiner(a)cluebyfour.org> > To: NANOG list <nanog(a)nanog.org> > Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1112140906460.30735(a)whammy.cluebyfour.org> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Wed, 14 Dec 2011, Leigh Porter wrote: > >> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >> >> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm > > Some of which seems to float between fear-mongering, possibly > mis-appropriated quotes, half-truths and information that is flat-out > wrong. I would not trust the judgment and opinions of someone who even > admitted in one of their blog posts that they had "no hands-on Service > Provider IPv6 experience." > > While I can understand why IPv4 address brokers would take a decidedly > anti-IPv6 stance (deploying IPv6 cuts into their potential business), that > doesn't make it any less underhanded. > > jms > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2011 22:18:41 +0800 > From: Mark Tinka <mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> > To: nanog(a)nanog.org > Cc: John Curran <jcurran(a)arin.net> > Subject: Re: Recognized Address Transfer Facilitators (was: Your > Christmas Bonus Has Arrived) > Message-ID: <201112142218.42329.mtinka(a)globaltransit.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Wednesday, December 14, 2011 08:30:06 PM Leigh Porter > wrote: > >> I love the anti v6 stuff on some of their sites! >> >> http://www.iptrading.com/news/news.htm > > I'd have been more impressed if they actually came up with > the stories by themselves, as opposed to linking to existing > stories that their link titles take out of context. > > Mark. >

1 0

Your Christmas Bonus Has Arrived
by IPv4 Brokers 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

Do you have subnets that are not in use, or only used for specific purposes? If so, please contact us. We are paying up-front (or escrow) for the use of networks that are not used. The networks are used for honeypots and other research. You do not have to modify your BGP announcements, establish a GRE tunnel to our network and forward packets over the tunnel. The networks may be used for a month or longer, you are paid an agreed upon price per each month of use. Your confidentiality is absolutely guaranteed. Only you will know that you're making money on your un-used or single/special-use networks. We do require a minimum of /24.

13 15

Re: EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship
by Hal Murray 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

> but the letter needs to be updated for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are > close to passing through US Congress now. Stanford law school CIS (Center for Internet and Society) had a panel on SOPA a week ago. What's Wrong with SOPA? http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6770 That's got a link to the talk on youtube: 2 hours. I thought it was very good. (I'm may be biased. I live in Silicon Valley, not Hollywood.) The handout also has a link to a white paper on the DNS issues. htp://bit.ly/sZBJbd Security and Other Technical Concerns Raised by the DNS Filtering Requirements in the PROTECT IP Bill Authors: Steve Crocker, Shinkuro, Inc. David Dagon, Georgia Tech Dan Kaminsky, DKH Danny McPherson, Verisign, Inc. Paul Vixie, Internet Systems Consortium My opinions (US centric): Everybody agrees that Hollywood has problems with getting ripped off. The bill should be dumped rather than patched until it is good enough. (If you are a cynic, you would propose that the really terrible parts of the bill were put there so that the good guys would focus on getting them removed and ignore the parts that were only bad.) Technically, it won't work. (Spammer's have lots of practice creating domains faster than people can black list them and/or hiding in legitimate domains.) See URL above. Technically, the unintended consequences are nasty. (at least the ones we can see) Our legal quirks are already hurting US based cloud servers. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69366.html Internationally, it's shooting ourselves in the foot. Hillary Clinton is on record as saying the Internet should be open. If China did something like this we would make fun of them. If we block their domains, they can block Google and such. (They are undoubtedly better at it than we are. Google gets a lot of its income from offshore.) There is no due-process. The AG could take down Google. There is already a good example of the government taking down a legitimate domain without being willing to provide any justification: Breaking News: Feds Falsely Censor Popular Blog For Over A Year, Deny All Due Process, Hide All Details... http://j.mp/s1aS6z http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/ breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due- process-hide-all-details.shtml This whole mess is a wonderful example of why many citizens are cynical about Congress. It looks like the MPAA/RIAA can buy whatever they want. -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.

3 3

EFF call for signatures from Internet engineers against censorship
by Peter Eckersley 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

(Apologies for an slightly-OT posting) Last year, EFF organized an open letter from network engineers against Internet censorship legislation being considered by the US Senate (https://eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/open-letter) Along with other activists' efforts, we successfully delayed that proposal, but the letter needs to be updated for two bills, SOPA and PIPA, that are close to passing through US Congress now. If you would like to sign, please email me at pde(a)eff.org, with a one-line summary of what part of the Internet you helped to helped to design, implement, debug or run. We need signatures by 8am GMT on Thursday (midnight Wednesday US Pacific, 3am US Eastern). Also feel free to forward this to colleagues who played a role in designing and building the network. The updated letter's text is below: We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it. Last year, many of us wrote to you and your colleagues to warn about the proposed "COICA" copyright and censorship legislation. Today, we are writing again to reiterate our concerns about the SOPA and PIPA derivatives of last year's bill, that are under consideration in the House and Senate. In many respects, these proposals are worse than the one we were alarmed to read last year. If enacted, either of these bills will create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. Regardless of recent amendments to SOPA, both bills will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS) and have other capricious technical consequences. In exchange for this, such legislation would engender censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' right and ability to communicate and express themselves online. All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but these bills are particularly egregious in that regard because they cause entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under these proposals. In fact, it seems that this has already begun to happen under the nascent DHS/ICE seizures program. Censorship of Internet infrastructure will inevitably cause network errors and security problems. This is true in China, Iran and other countries that censor the network today; it will be just as true of American censorship. It is also true regardless of whether censorship is implemented via the DNS, proxies, firewalls, or any other method. Types of network errors and insecurity that we wrestle with today will become more widespread, and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government. The current bills -- SOPA explicitly and PIPA implicitly -- also threaten engineers who build Internet systems or offer services that are not readily and automatically compliant with censorship actions by the U.S. government. When we designed the Internet the first time, our priorities were reliability, robustness and minimizing central points of failure or control. We are alarmed that Congress is so close to mandating censorship-compliance as a design requirement for new Internet innovations. This can only damage the security of the network, and give authoritarian governments more power over what their citizens can read and publish. The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We cannot have a free and open Internet unless its naming and routing systems sit above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US begins to use its central in the network for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive. Senators, Congressmen, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put these bills aside. -- Peter Eckersley pde(a)eff.org Technology Projects Director Tel +1 415 436 9333 x131 Electronic Frontier Foundation Fax +1 415 436 9993

2 1

recommendations for external montioring services?
by Eric J Esslinger 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

I'm not looking to monitor a massive infrastructure: 3 web sites, 2 mail servers (pop,imap,submission port, https webmail), 4 dns servers (including lookups to ensure they're not listening but not talking), and one inbound mx. A few network points to ping to ensure connectivity throughout my system. Scheduled notification windows (for example, during work hours I don't want my phone pinged unless it's everything going offline. Off hours I do. Secondary notifications if problem persists to other users, or in the event of many triggers. That sort of thing). Sensitivity settings (If web server 1 shows down for 5 min, that's not a big deal. Another one if it doesn't respond to repeated queries within 1 minute is a big deal) A Weekly summary of issues would be nice. (especially the 'well it was down for a short bit but we didn't notify as per settings') I don't have a lot of money to throw at this. I DO have detailed internal monitoring of our systems but sometimes that is not entirely useful, due to the fact that there are a few 'single points of failure' within our network/notification system, not to mention if the monitor itself goes offline it's not exactly going to be able to tell me about it. (and that happened once, right before the mail server decided to stop receiving mail). __________________________ Eric Esslinger Information Services Manager - Fayetteville Public Utilities http://www.fpu-tn.com/ (931)433-1522 ext 165 This message may contain confidential and/or proprietary information and is intended for the person/entity to whom it was originally addressed. Any use by others is strictly prohibited.

11 10

Colos in Melbourne, FL.
by graham＠g-rock.net 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

For those with Colo space in Melbourne FL. Please reply to me offlist; looking to deploy a POP there. Thanks. Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint!

1 0

128.0.0.0/16 as seen from RIPE Atlas
by Mirjam Kuehne 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Dear colleagues, As a follow-up to the recent article "The Curious Case of 128.0/16", we now looked at 128.0/16 as seen from RIPE Atlas: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/dfk/128.0-16-seen-by-atlas Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0